I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.

Then define "god."

Can't, except in the most general terms. This annoys you. I know.

The thing is, I don't rely on a belief in God. I don't need God to exist. Nothing depends on God existing. I just think it's possible he/she does. People really really really want me to believe it's totally impossible. I feel sorry for those people because they are just as obsessed with nonsense as the Westboro Baptist Church is.

Is it possible that the flying spaghetti monster exists?

This is the only topic on this forum which has rules regarding its discussion that could result in penalties. Before we had such rules it repeated 100 times a day with no end. Be careful where you tread.

Are you threatening to ban me for refusing to agree that God is impossible? That seems a lot like what the obsessively religious do. How weird that you even said that.

What exactly is people's fascination with discussion religion and God in the context of "does he exist or not?" or "why do people believe in God?"

Because they were brainwashed as children and can't accept the fact that what they have believed their entire lives is wrong.

Both my parents are late conversion from varied backgrounds.

Exactly. This is my point. Coming from a very concentrated Mormon town I've tried numerous times to argue to some of my Mormon friends that what they believed was not real and that it was just a construct based on a need to understand the world. What I've realized is that you can argue until you are blue in the face but people will always choose based on their emotional needs and usually choose to accept or denounce religion based on life experience and not words. That is why I don't understand why people discuss it so much because it's not really amounting to anything.

It's an easy thing to keep science and faith separate. God created the universe in 6 days. OK, his days are longer than ours. And it doesn't discuss the mechanism of creation - it only provides attribution. So science can be totally correct - and it just means we're figuring out how he did it.

But I'm betting they're more stubborn than that. Sounds like your dad thinks we don't know how to compensate for the rate of universe expansion. And he thinks the earth is several thousand years old?

I've got bad news - you can't reason with them. If you could, they wouldn't be young-Earth creationists. Doubly given the late in life conversion - those types tend to be the most irrational.

He's a young earth unless proven otherwise creationist. He's said openly that he just hasn't been presented with evidence for otherwise. I see that as an opportunity.

Easy. Carbon dating. If he disbelieves the technology, he has to disagree with a vast swath of physics. And I can guarantee he hasn't critiqued to that level.

His beliefs have been challenged - he just ignores the cognitive dissonance. I'd put money on it.

If your sister has ever said something like "we have evidence of micro-evolution but not macro-evolution," just stop trying. She is literally unsalvagable.

Tangent! I have a question about carbon dating. I may have asked it before, but I forget the answer. I'm also too lazy to Google it.

People often use carbon dating to tell you when something was made. For example, we know this stone tool used by ancient humans is from X000 BC because of carbon dating. So let's say I have a stone tool that I carbon date to some year. Why would the stone tool carbon date differently than an unworked stone? How do you carbon date the age of the stone itself vs. the time since it has been used by humans?

It is possible that god or several gods exist. However, given all the evidence we've observed of our physical world and the extreme lack of evidence of the supernatural, the likelihood is so insanely low that it might as well be impossible.

I take exception with your extreme lack of reasoning and understanding of basic critical thinking.

I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.

Then define "god."

Can't, except in the most general terms. This annoys you. I know.

The thing is, I don't rely on a belief in God. I don't need God to exist. Nothing depends on God existing. I just think it's possible he/she does. People really really really want me to believe it's totally impossible. I feel sorry for those people because they are just as obsessed with nonsense as the Westboro Baptist Church is.

Is it possible that the flying spaghetti monster exists?

This is the only topic on this forum which has rules regarding its discussion that could result in penalties. Before we had such rules it repeated 100 times a day with no end. Be careful where you tread.

Are you threatening to ban me for refusing to agree that God is impossible? That seems a lot like what the obsessively religious do. How weird that you even said that.

No. I'm only threatening to close the thread and prevent discussion on this topic that has repeated 100 times on this forum already. Rather than waste everyone's time typing it all over again, you should instead go find those multi-year old threads that cover the exact same topic and read them. To repeat the same thing over and over again is spam.

It is possible that god or several gods exist. However, given all the evidence we've observed of our physical world and the extreme lack of evidence of the supernatural, the likelihood is so insanely low that it might as well be impossible.

I take exception with your extreme lack of reasoning and understanding of basic critical thinking.

Heh. You don't know me very well. That's OK. It's mutual.

I'm just more big picture than most people. I agree that there's no reason to believe in God.

I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.

Then define "god."

Can't, except in the most general terms. This annoys you. I know.

The thing is, I don't rely on a belief in God. I don't need God to exist. Nothing depends on God existing. I just think it's possible he/she does. People really really really want me to believe it's totally impossible. I feel sorry for those people because they are just as obsessed with nonsense as the Westboro Baptist Church is.

Is it possible that the flying spaghetti monster exists?

This is the only topic on this forum which has rules regarding its discussion that could result in penalties. Before we had such rules it repeated 100 times a day with no end. Be careful where you tread.

Are you threatening to ban me for refusing to agree that God is impossible? That seems a lot like what the obsessively religious do. How weird that you even said that.

No. I'm only threatening to close the thread and prevent discussion on this topic that has repeated 100 times on this forum already. Rather than waste everyone's time typing it all over again, you should instead go find those multi-year old threads that cover the exact same topic and read them. To repeat the same thing over and over again is spam.

Easy. Carbon dating. If he disbelieves the technology, he has to disagree with a vast swath of physics. And I can guarantee he hasn't critiqued to that level.

His beliefs have been challenged - he just ignores the cognitive dissonance. I'd put money on it.If your sister has ever said something like "we have evidence of micro-evolution but not macro-evolution," just stop trying. She is literally unsalvagable.

Honestly? I'd wager he's beyond hope. The evidence against Young Earth Creationism is so extensive, so prevalent, and so deeply vetted, that if he is currently still not convinced, he has set a literally impossible standard of proof for himself.

OK so what is it and how do I explain it? That's the problem.Shopping listNeed scientific evidence/explanation for:1. Origin of Life - Which experiments have led to the consensus on evolution? Where are there still questions? How can a lay person present this to a scientifically knowledgable person?2. Age and origin of universe - Pete mentioned compensating for expansion of universe when calculating distance via light. How is it done? Are there other means that are used as well? I know a bit about background radiation etc. re: big bang, so there's that.3. Age of Earth - Ok carbon dating. Got it. Thanks! Just in case, anything they might argue against it?

yes, because there are books that answer these questions:"I'm curious about your various knowledges and how they contribute to your understanding of the world and modern day science."and"but what do you do when you're not an expert in evolutionary biology or astrophysics or paleogeology etc.?"

I'll warn you one final time that I fully expect he'll push the goalposts further out indefinitely, setting an increasingly specific and high standard of proof in order to avoid having to come to terms with his cognitive dissonance.

So, if you do wish to continue on this path:

1. Attack a specific assertion of his and gather a preponderance of evidence on just it. I would suggest evolution or age of the Earth.

2. Ignore the question of "god" entirely and focus solely on the specific assertion, not its ramifications.

3. Hold his refutations to the exact standard of proof he's requiring for himself. Make the exact same incredulous statements back at him. Force him to prove his rationalizations to a ludicrous degree.

I've been a scientist since I was 3. Ever since I've been able to read, I read complex books on science. My father and I talked about physics every day. I always sought more information and challenged my beliefs. I latched onto science as early as the 1st grade. It was the focus of my undergraduate education. I've been an expert microbiologist for 7 years.

The problem is that it is impossible to condense my learning into an easily-digestible package.

An undergraduate-level introductory textbook will give you everything you need fod your purposes.

People often use carbon dating to tell you when something was made. For example, we know this stone tool used by ancient humans is from X000 BC because of carbon dating. So let's say I have a stone tool that I carbon date to some year. Why would the stone tool carbon date differently than an unworked stone? How do you carbon date the age of the stone itself vs. the time since it has been used by humans?

That's an easy one. You don't date the stone, you date organic material that you can associate directly with it. The organic material can be dated because living things exchange carbon (and hence carbon-14) with the environment, but this ceases after death.

People often use carbon dating to tell you when something was made. For example, we know this stone tool used by ancient humans is from X000 BC because of carbon dating. So let's say I have a stone tool that I carbon date to some year. Why would the stone tool carbon date differently than an unworked stone? How do you carbon date the age of the stone itself vs. the time since it has been used by humans?

That's an easy one. You don't date the stone, you date organic material that you can associate directly with it. The organic material can be dated because living things exchange carbon with the environment, and this ceases after death.

So you date the bone or wooden handle of the stone tool or you date the fossil that is stuck in the rock?

So there is no way to know how old a non-organic object is by carbon dating if there is no organic material associated with it? How do you date something like old pottery? Clay is not organic, and it might not always be painted with animal blood.

So there is no way to know how old a non-organic object is by carbon dating if there is no organic material associated with it? How do you date something like old pottery? Clay is not organic, and it might not always be painted with animal blood.

So there is no way to know how old a non-organic object is by carbon dating if there is no organic material associated with it? How do you date something like old pottery? Clay is not organic, and it might not always be painted with animal blood.

So there is no way to know how old a non-organic object is by carbon dating if there is no organic material associated with it? How do you date something like old pottery? Clay is not organic, and it might not always be painted with animal blood.

Well, it doesn't have to be painted with animal blood. It might contain traces of food, it might be buried together with human remains, etc.

Also, there are a number of other dating methods, as you can see here, as Churba already said while I was typing this.